Dress code in the workplace has come a long way. Most employees are no longer expected to come wearing a suit and tie, or suit and panty hose, to work. As a writer with CNN.com puts it, "When it comes to personal style in the workplace, there are no hard and fast rules. What is suitable changes with where you work and what you do." Workplace dress codes are being redefined: how does an individual maintain a sense of personal style, while adhering to their company's expectations?
First, let me start off by defining modern dress code and the way that it has changed over time. According to AskMen.com, "...since the dot-com craze began, work clothes have become progressively more casual. It started when many Silicon Valley firms found that their employees worked better in relaxed clothing, than in stiffer, more traditional work wear, and so they adopted this casual look as their daily work attire. This slowly trickled down to other companies, as they believed casual clothing would make employees more comfortable, and thus boost productivity." Casual clothing is becoming the cultural norm in the workplace. The problem arises when a company fails to define what casual means which "brought about confusion in the workplace, as well as a reduced sense of professionalism." And that can mean a problem for professional work relationships, both from the employee and the client. A company has to balance the personal style of its employees in regards to the brand image that it is presenting to the public. In an article posted on suite101.com, author Deborah S. Hildebrand writes, "While many employers would nix the idea of having to teach their employees how to dress on the job, there seems to be no single resource that provides this type of education to those just entering the workforce. So establishing a workplace dress code can at least point errant workers in the right direction. That being said, employers might want to consider balancing fashion trends and corporate image when they put together their policy." Employers, in order to attract and retain top talent, are moving toward more employee centric policies; it makes sense that less restrictive dress codes will help improve both engagement and productivity.
Which leads me to the following questions: while employers don't have to consider employees need to express personal style, should they? Does having a policy that allows employees to have more freedom in dress help or hurt the professional environment?
Friday, August 17, 2012
Dress for Success: Dress Code vs. Appearance
No matter what industry you work in, there is some form of a dress code. Where you work obviously determines the dress code, but employers can, and do, regulate what we look like at work. In a state like California, an "at-will" state, employees make the choice to adhere to a set of dress code regulations, or find another employer.
The question is when does a dress code go to far? When is an employer dictating to an employee dress code requirements versus appearance requirements? While many of us can agree that our employer does have the right to tell us what kind of dress is appropriate (i.e. at my current employer we are asked to wear all black; a tech firm, where there may be little to no client-facing, accepts jeans and t-shirts; an outside sales person may mimic the dress code of their clients by wearing a suit, etc) can they tell us if our "look" is right for the company? Take for example, the case against Abercrombie and Fitch (Gonzalez, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores); while the dress code there allows for associates to wear shorts, hoodies, t-shirts, flip-flops, or Converse shoes, the company was sued for seeking a certain look on the sales floor. As reported in the New York Times in 2003, "Abercrombie's 'classic American' look, pervasive in its stores and catalogs and on its Web site, is blond, blue-eyed and preppy. Abercrombie finds such workers and models by concentrating its hiring on certain colleges, fraternities and sororities." A lawsuit was filed by minority workers claiming they were discriminated against. The courts agreed and in 2004 the class action suit was settled for $50 million, less court and attorney fees.
When does a dress code go too far? For example at my current employer, there is a section of the dress code that speaks to make-up and nail polish standards for female employees. Make-up must be worn and tasteful; nail polish colors must be neutral or normally accepted colors and polish must be neat and clean and cannot be chipped or peeling. Also, there are many associates who remove piercings before work or cover tattoos to adhere to dress code standards, even though they had these items at the time of being hired. Currently, employees are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. In fact, many employers make exceptions to dress code policy based on some of these attributes. Several current cases are deciding if appearance, such as weight or height, should also be included.
When it comes to dress code vs appearance, what rights should a company have? How about the employee?
The question is when does a dress code go to far? When is an employer dictating to an employee dress code requirements versus appearance requirements? While many of us can agree that our employer does have the right to tell us what kind of dress is appropriate (i.e. at my current employer we are asked to wear all black; a tech firm, where there may be little to no client-facing, accepts jeans and t-shirts; an outside sales person may mimic the dress code of their clients by wearing a suit, etc) can they tell us if our "look" is right for the company? Take for example, the case against Abercrombie and Fitch (Gonzalez, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores); while the dress code there allows for associates to wear shorts, hoodies, t-shirts, flip-flops, or Converse shoes, the company was sued for seeking a certain look on the sales floor. As reported in the New York Times in 2003, "Abercrombie's 'classic American' look, pervasive in its stores and catalogs and on its Web site, is blond, blue-eyed and preppy. Abercrombie finds such workers and models by concentrating its hiring on certain colleges, fraternities and sororities." A lawsuit was filed by minority workers claiming they were discriminated against. The courts agreed and in 2004 the class action suit was settled for $50 million, less court and attorney fees.
When does a dress code go too far? For example at my current employer, there is a section of the dress code that speaks to make-up and nail polish standards for female employees. Make-up must be worn and tasteful; nail polish colors must be neutral or normally accepted colors and polish must be neat and clean and cannot be chipped or peeling. Also, there are many associates who remove piercings before work or cover tattoos to adhere to dress code standards, even though they had these items at the time of being hired. Currently, employees are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. In fact, many employers make exceptions to dress code policy based on some of these attributes. Several current cases are deciding if appearance, such as weight or height, should also be included.
When it comes to dress code vs appearance, what rights should a company have? How about the employee?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Dress for Success: The Interview
Several years ago, I was working as an assistant manager of a popular retail brand, and under my Area of Responsibility was the duty of recruiting, hiring, and training new part time associates. The brand I worked for typically hired generalists; that is associates that could be cross-trained in several areas of the business. Typically, I tried to prescreen associates before calling them in for a face-to-face interview. Occasionally applicants were prescreened by other leaders in the business, and interviews were set up on the schedule for me. In my experience, I have seen candidates walk in for an interview wearing all sorts of crazy things: last year a young woman wore her sunglasses the entire interview, and never once offered an explanation for why (if?) she needed them. Candidates have worn sweat pants, tank tops, flip-flops, baseball caps, and super high stilettos with really short skirts. But this candidate was by far dressed the most inappropriately of any candidate I had ever interviewed: he wore jeans, tennis shoes, and a t-shirt that said "F*** You." (without the stars!) His email address on his application was so profane, I can't even hint at it here. This experience really focused me on presentation of appearance as an essential part of the interview process.
In any interview situation, dressing for success is a key element in making a great first impression. According to Forbes Magazine, and citing a study by Dr. Frank Bernieri from Oregon State University "...within the first 10 seconds of meeting your interviewer--otherwise known as the meet-and-greet--that person has decided whether or not you're right for the job. Those who come across as polished and pulled together are quite simply more likely to be hired than those who are seen as putting in less effort." In an environment where one open position may have any where from ten to 100 applicants, how you present yourself can be a deciding factor. If every applicant has a comparable resume, education, and skill set, are interviewers going to choose the person who took the time to put on a suit, or the person who came in sweat pants and a t-shirt? Additionally, Nathan Newberger from WorkTree.com advises, " Research the prospective employer: companies and even industries have definable corporate cultures. Find out what the corporate uniform is-and wear it." Specifically in the retail industry looking the brand is important. If the hiring manager can't picture you on the sales floor styling customers you won't get an offer.
As a hiring manager how important of a factor does appearance and dress play into your decision to hire someone or not? Is it fair to take appearance into consideration when interviewing a candidate?
In any interview situation, dressing for success is a key element in making a great first impression. According to Forbes Magazine, and citing a study by Dr. Frank Bernieri from Oregon State University "...within the first 10 seconds of meeting your interviewer--otherwise known as the meet-and-greet--that person has decided whether or not you're right for the job. Those who come across as polished and pulled together are quite simply more likely to be hired than those who are seen as putting in less effort." In an environment where one open position may have any where from ten to 100 applicants, how you present yourself can be a deciding factor. If every applicant has a comparable resume, education, and skill set, are interviewers going to choose the person who took the time to put on a suit, or the person who came in sweat pants and a t-shirt? Additionally, Nathan Newberger from WorkTree.com advises, " Research the prospective employer: companies and even industries have definable corporate cultures. Find out what the corporate uniform is-and wear it." Specifically in the retail industry looking the brand is important. If the hiring manager can't picture you on the sales floor styling customers you won't get an offer.
As a hiring manager how important of a factor does appearance and dress play into your decision to hire someone or not? Is it fair to take appearance into consideration when interviewing a candidate?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)